[pdimitar]

I don't see how the latter follows from the former? The former is much bigger and more abstract; syntax is just one of the vehicles to try and codify it.

F.ex. if you have an universal construct of green threads / fibers then 7 PLs could express it 7 different ways, yet underneath they'd all be the same.

[weavejester]

The programming language informs the design of the system. As I said in my earlier comment, an idiomatic Java codebase is going to be designed very differently to an idiomatic Clojure codebase, even if they both intend to solve the same problem.

[pdimitar]

But that's still not a function of the syntax per se; Java has no immutability encoded in its runtime, hence it does not offer it as a syntax either.

[hibikir]

Scala has no immutability encoded in its runtime either (as it's the same as Java), but yet syntactically it's immutable in practice. Will the JRE technically allow a val to be edited through some third party thread inspecting your code and messing with memory? Sure. But it's not a reasonable fear in any real world environment, where I cannot remember, in 15+ years of professional scala, a case where anything I expected to be immutable (everything) to be mutated under me. Nowadays people using in in an FP style don't even think of the physical threads, as green thread libraries are taking care of all the scheduling.

So focusing on the runtime's guarantees doesn't seem like a practicality focused argument to me.

[pdimitar]

You are citing a commendable exception (Scala) to tear down a bigger argument which is not exactly a fair discussion.

Furthermore, if you trace my comments, you'll see that I had to choose PLs years ago (12+ to be precise). Things were quite different at the time. Java might have almost caught up today; back then we couldn't even be certain `synchronized` is stable all the time. Just saying.

Scala did very well then, judging by your words. I could probably offer a loose analogy to Typescript as well; while it does compile to JS underneath, they added a stricter layer that makes programming in it more deterministic and stable. (Not the same thing because my main point was "runtime" but hey, show me a perfect analogy.)

You are free to say your last sentence. I am free to disagree. My practice has shown me that runtimes bleed into syntax almost always. Exceptions exist, sure.

[weavejester]

But syntax must necessarily include what it's representing, no? For instance, `{:a 1}` represents an immutable map in Clojure, in the same way that `42` represents an immutable integer in Java.

[pdimitar]

Agreed, though I didn't mean "constants" when I said "immutability".

[Boxxed]

Those differences are not due to the syntax, they're due to much deeper things like the differing type system.

[weavejester]

I'm not sure I agree. Certainly there are differences other than syntax, but that doesn't mean syntax is irrelevant. For instance, would Clojure programmers use maps as much if there was no syntax for map literals?

Syntax determines what parts of a language are within easy reach, and therefore affects how programmers use the language. Tools that a syntax make easy are used often; tools that syntax makes hard are used infrequently. This indirectly impacts how a piece of software is designed.

[acdw]

This is very much what I meant in the post (hi, I'm the author :P)! CL has maps, but they're a pain to use - not just because of the syntax, but because of the relative dearth of standard library functions to work with them compared to say, lists or even vectors.